.Debunking's a BAD Thing?.

I think of the meaning shift as something similar to what homosexual men did when they co-opted the 'queer' epithet. In this case, though, it involves a self-congratulatory term that another group uses when it defines itself as insulters. -- '04-Jun-11th

Great Circle

The article, Basic geography doesn't deter conspiracy theorists: It's the great circle route, not government mind control by Paul Miller, is accompanied by two graphic images. The first image is captioned as follows: More than six miles above downtown Carmel a Korean Airlines 747 on its way to LAX left behind four brilliant contrails on a late May afternoon. Should we all be alarmed? The photo shows about three inches of normal looking contrails taken with a zoom lense, magnified to the extent that the plane itself measures almost 1.5 inches, with the four engines clearly visible. The plane has an eerie ghost-like appearance.

The second image, called "Los Angeles to Asia air routes", is a computer generated line drawing of Monterey county, with points labeled for Santa Cruz and Carmel. It depicts twelve approximately equi-distant parallel lines. The key explains that these lines represent the following:

The caption for this image is as follows:
Great circle routes between Los Angeles and 12 cities in Asia cross Monterey County. Because the planes fly so high - more than six miles up - their contrails can be seen over large areas. With more than 400 flights every week, the vapor trails set conspiracy theorists atwitter --- '04-Jun-6th

Gaining
a Toehold Upon the Evidence

I do think of altitude as a most significant element in convincing folks
that we may have a problem, since contrails apparently cannot be generated
at the altitudes at which some of these trails seem
(backup copy)
to have been observed. A way to estimate altitude from the ground would
be quite a valuable tool. I've tried to come up with a
way to do this, but reading my thoughts about that half a year later
I find that I'm not yet able to understand what I said. In particular,
I can't figure how the night scope comes in. So, good luck to anybody else
trying to understand me.

Ideally, every piece of positive evidence would help to box doubters
in until eventually, there could be no respectable denial. Unfortunately,
there are very powerful psychological motivations to want to disbelieve
that any operations such as the ones that we have hypothesized could actually
be happening. Thus, the evidence will have to be logically air tight before
most will be willing to even examine it.

Meanwhile, we'll have to deal with doubters who, as they should, and
as we should, will actually be trying to find every possible way
explain away our baby steps toward the truth. As annoying as they are (and
believe me, I know they can be), they may eventually perform a valuable
service as the only people who will even read what we have to say. Some
of them are definitely evil,
but most are honest truth seekers, just as you and I are.

However, they're jumping in too early. We're not yet at the point of
presenting any findings to criticize, for the most part. We're still in
the wild idea brainstorming stage. They mistake our uncritical provisional
acceptance of brainstorm ideas as our having a fundamentally unscientific
bent. Thus, they make themselves as unwelcome as the nay-sayer at a corporate
idea farm.

I've tried to make an honest effort at examining my own relationship
with the evidence (backup
copy) for chemtrails (whatever this phenomenon may turn out to be).
I have to admit that it feels to me as though we are fire fighters that
haven't yet discovered any tools, such as water, for dealing with our problem.
So, work in this field can be emotionally exhausting and discouraging,
even without the cracks from the peanut gallery.

I reject the suggestion that I (at least) have been susceptible to chemtrail
belief because of a deep seated need to fit in, here. As far as I am aware
I was one of the
first (backup
copy) people to post about chemtrails on a former incarnation of this
forum. I had not encountered earlier threads on the topic, and still have
not seen them. It was my first post after introducing myself. I posted
despite
the fact that it was kooky, and the last thing I wanted was to appear kooky,
since I was hypersensitive to the stigma of Y2K-kookhood. If anything,
I was less inclined to discuss chemtrails among Y2K folks, because of not
wanting to draw unfavorable attention to the type of people that discuss
the potential of Y2K problems.

I had no particular reason to think that people here would be any more
or less receptive to discussing the topic. There was, in fact, considerable immediate
(backup
copy) resistance to even allowing the issue to be discussed at all,
since many believed that it was “off topic.” I found myself in the position
of arguing as the newest poster with long time posters about what was or
should be on topic. Even five months later I was one of only few to argue
the relevance (backup
copy) of the topic. I found myself having to continue
to defend (backup
copy) the issue as being appropriate, even after the rollover!
If I was falling for the issue of chemtrails to fit in here, it certainly
didn’t feel that way.

I disagree that people who are convinced of something must be able to
(or even willing to try to) dream up how someone could prove to them that
it is not true, or be branded "unscientific people," or "true believers."
(backup
copy) It might, instead, be a sign that they merely don't see
such an effort as likely to yield valuable results, at their current juncture.
Just as I would eventually try to raise doubts about any evidence that
favors chemtrail hypotheses, so would I also try to raise doubts about
any that disfavored them. To settle matters one way or another would require
an airtight logic. If I knew what that argument were I would state it. Not
knowing does not evidence dementia.

Consider this parallel. I'm convinced that there is another prime number
beyond whichever is the most recently discovered one. I cannot now prove
that there is one. It's going to take a heck of a lot of work to prove
it, and I'm willing to contribute to that effort in some small way, by
donating the use of my CPU. It's not necessary for me to specify what evidence
could convince me that we have already identified the entire universe of
prime numbers. Refusal to even try to do that should not brand me as a
religious "next prime number" nutcase. My unwillingness to try to convince
you that there is such a number is not good proof of the weakness of my
position.

I accept the existence of the next prime number provisionally. My opinion
is not faith based, in that I'm not dedicated to remaining convinced, despite
any and all evidence that might be presented to the contrary. I may not
even know a sound argument against the existence of a next prime number
if it bit me in the ass. I may be unwilling to try to read a proof by some
other forum member because it has too many Greek symbols in it. That would
not make me a math moron or a "more prime numbers" zealot. It would also
not make my opinion unfalsifiable.

It is also not necessarily true that it is always impossible to "prove
a negative," despite the fact that this is a popular saying. I could, for
example, prove that there are no mountain lion’s in my computer room adequately
enough to convince almost all of you.

I am convinced that I have seen low flying planes on a hot, dry California
fall day emitting numerous billowing parallel lines, in teams as well as
in multiple passes by the same plane. The material was long lasting and
slowly expanding, and I am convinced that these planes were neither emitting
mere contrails, nor crop dusting. I would love for anybody to prove that
right OR wrong, but aside from the
pictures I took and my verbal account I can not yet tell how either
could be done. --- '02-Feb-2nd

Me,
Myself and Evidence

This is a little tricky to respond to, not
knowing of what you are, and are not, already aware, but I'll give it a
shot. Please, forgive me if I mention something you've already considered.
I don't have time to trace back through chemtrail threads to see on which
of them you may have participated. So, I'm also talking to brand spanking
newcomers to the issue.

I certainly don't mean to insult anyone's
intelligence. In fact, let me just say right off the bat that all of the
smartest people I know (except for Clifford
Carnicom) are either unaware of chemtrails, or have dismissed the idea
out of hand. That's not to say that I know Mr. Carnicom personally, because
I don't. I only feel as though I do from reading his work, following his
reasoning, and listening to him talk on various radio shows.

I also don't mean to suggest that other chemtrail
watchers, such as
myself,
are " not
the smartest people" (i.e. dumb), but that I feel I have only a vague acquaintance
with their online handles, with not enough familiarity with any one person's
opinions or reasoning ability. It's hard for me to remember which theories
and opinions relate to which participants. Without naming names, some of
them, to me, are shall we say, consistently over the top.

I do not follow all (or even most) of the
chemtrail related issues that have been raised to date. I also fall asleep
at the keyboard reading some (most?) of the meteorological, chemistry &
physics background. There is an element of information overload, for me,
anyway. So, I don't examine every last piece of available evidence. I suppose
that admission might prompt some to say about me something along the lines
of what Mark Twain said of religious people in general: "Ah, yes, well,
they believe what they believe, but they don't really believe all
that." (paraphrase)

How arrogant does one have to be to set theirself
up as wiser than all of the intelligent people that are alive today? Well,
all I can say to that is... "It's a gift!" I admit that I do rely more than
most upon my intuition, but that is not to say that I'm a slouch in the
research
department. I also have a knack for knowing when folks are lying and it
has served me well.

I do not drop everything to focus upon Chemtrails.
Why? I don't know. Clearly I should if things are anywhere near as bad
as they look. Perhaps it's a paralysis of analysis. Maybe I'm just plain
lazy. It could be that I'm waiting for my inspiration. Meanwhile, I think
I'm contributing in the best way I know how by sharing my thoughts and
putting my "Dancr" reputation on the line, which may not sound like much
to you, but it is much to me. I'm not yet prepared to make up bumper
stickers to hand out, considering that I would not yet put one on my
own car.

Perhaps I have a supreme case of egotism to
think that I'm able to express my opinions in such a way as to influence
others to give the issue some attention. I'll admit, I've rarely received
any positive feedback for my writing on this or any other topic at any
time in my life... not even the kind of backhanded compliments that Flint
gets.

I can only hope that by letting it all hang
out, that I can convince some few people out there that one doesn't have
to be a complete lunatic to consider the possibility that there
might be something unusual going on above our heads. This is not to say
that others who are speaking on this issue are lunatics. I really
have no way of knowing that, since they rarely reveal more than this one
narrow slice of their lives.

It's hard for me to hear words like "gullible"
that get thrown around the chemtrail neighborhood, since that is so far
from my self image that I simply cannot relate. For as long as I've thought
about such things, I've been a full-blown hard-core skeptic on nearly
every topic that has come within ear shot: religion,
medicine,
insurance,
law
enforcement,
education,
patriarchy,
parenting,
politics,
you name it. The thought of accepting some idea just because it's "there"
I find completely revolting.

Now, some wisenheimer may pipe up at this
point and suggest that if I'm trying to seem normal I'm not doing a very
good job of it. There's probably not a person in the world that agrees
with me even vaguely on all of the areas that I just mentioned. My impression,
actually, is that most people probably disagree with me on all counts.
In fact, I'm lucky with most people if I can detect even one area
of agreement in any of these issues that are important to me.

Unfortunately, the way most people operate
is that once they know one thing about someone that they think is kooky,
anything else they may say is automatically suspect. I guess this would
be why most people hold their cards pretty close to their chests, and why
we can live with someone for years without knowing how they think in any
of these areas.

I am determined, if I accomplish nothing else
of value in my life, to be "genuine." In other words, I seek to represent
only myself, and not to serve as an agent for others. I hope for not much
more than for people who knew me to say "If she said a thing is so, then
that is what she truly thought." As a psych major who has done quite
a bit of introspection I don't perceive myself to be disregarding evidence
in the service of some deep seated unmet emotional need, unless it would
be my need for a good challenge.

But... you don't have to depend on what I say,
when it comes to chemtrails. There's some objective evidence. Here are
the points that I find most convincing at this time. Sorry, I do not have
links for them all.

The planes that make long lasting trails that billow, drip and eventually
expand into cirrus are not commercial flights. (Thermit)

USA Today reporter Traci Watson reports that she did not write the
extremely uncomplimentary article which appeared in that newspaper under
her byline.

There are patents relating to some of the hypothesized objectives,
most notably the
Maxygen
Patent

There are executive orders in place that allow this kind of activity
to take place in the name of research.

Examination of our skin with an appropriate black light uncovers
disturbing
blotches
and marks
which definitely were not a part of the 1960's black light poster era experience. --- '01-Jul-18th

Odd
Noises

This Comment Appeared on a
thread that has expired

Yes. This is hard to admit. I hear the noises that make it seem as
though somebody is in the house. One time I had my phone in hand and having
already dialed 9-1- I was poised with my finger over the "1" button waiting
to see if I would hear more. We occasionally get raccoons and wild turkeys
on our roof at all times of day and night, making an amazingly loud noise,
but that never scares me at all. This is qualitatively different. I have
also heard low voices in recent weeks.

Lately (during the last year or so) my son
and I have heard thumping that could be like that described in the initiating
post of this thread. We've described it, several months ago, to our handiman,
who thinks it sounds like a water heater going bad. However, we have a
new water heater as of just a couple of years ago.

I've wondered if the thumping might be the
wind blowing against another outside closet door, right next to the one
that holds our furnace and water heater. But the times when we've heard
the noise (always well into the middle of the night) haven't been especially
windy. (Oh, lovely, it thumped four times just as I was about to
click send. Hah! No kidding!)

I'm reminded of a similar sound I occasionally
heard as a frosh in college, living on the fourth floor of an enormous
five-story building. I thought that the kids in the room above mine, or
one of their neighbors were playing with marbles up there or something.
It sounded like nothing so much as that someone was standing on a chair
and dropping a big marble that would bounce three or four times and then
roll. And then they'd drop another, and another, for hours. Except they
apparently weren't doing that. We decided that it was the sound of the
building settling. Then again there could have been some girls upstairs
laughing their asses off (as quietly as possible).

In my current house I'm noticing signs of
this building settling which are ten or so cracks in various places that
have appeared in recent days, and months. It kind of makes me want to move.
[Edited '02-Sep-10th to update:] The day after writing this we discovered
a leak in the water line leading to an ice maker in our wetbar. We shut
it off and haven't heard anything odd since then. All tolled
we figure it did about $30,000 of damage to our hardwood floors and underlying
structure. Slow leaks are not covered under standard household insurance,
naturally. --- '01-May 30th

Conspiracy

It is not necessary for a huge army of civilians to be "in" on the
grand scheme of things, but only for each person to mindlessly do their
small part and to wish to not draw disfavorable attention upon their
self. Don't we all know plenty of people like that? --- '01-May-22nd

Planting
Images

joemichigan
says: The techniques to inject CTs slowly into the minds
of the public through ads, movies, and who knows how else have worked very
well. Most people I have tried to wake up still are in denial. To those
(anyone else smell the CIA) who were involved with the movie ANTZ for example,
you really did a fine job. Direct yet subtle. Considering this movie is
a cartoon, the inclusion of chemtrails is so obviously intentional.

One day last weekend I visited Cannery Row,
and came across a new Ansel Adams shop. Apparently, somebody has decided
that in addition to their storefronts at Yosemite, San Francisco, and the
nearby Lodge at Pebble Beach, they needed another outlet on the Monterey
Peninsula. This store opened less than six months ago.

Prominently displayed (centered in the high
security area) is a $6,000 black & white "original" entitled Rails
and Jet Trails, which features a sky with several curved and criss-crossing
trails which are echo'd in some railroad tracks which appear to be on the
outskirts of a rail yard.

Considering that this store deals exclusively
in photography, I wondered aloud what claim this particular photograph
had to be called an "original" as compared to all of the other photographs
on display in the shop. The shop clerk provided the enlightening answer
that it was because this was an
original photograph. Call me clueless.

Of course, we don't know how long those particular
trails persisted, but it was at least long enough for the planes to finish
the job and disappear over the horizon. We cannot ask the Mr. Adams about
that, since he died in 1984. I do note, though that in all of his thousands
of photographs of western landscapes which I have seen, I have never taken
note of any that include expanding trails such as the
ones I have shot myself.

As far as the shopkeeper is aware, the Rails
and Jet Trails image has not appeared in any of the collections which
have been published to date. I asked because I don't recall having seen
it anywhere before, after having thumbed through most (all?) of the collections
at the other three shops mentioned above.

My brief internet search on various combinations
of "Ansel Adams" and "Rails and Jet Trails" comes up empty for this image.
The paranoid in me has to wonder if he even took this picture. I suppose
there would be a way for someone who knows more about Ansel Adams and photography
than I do to investigate that question. --- '00-Nov-6th

Fiber
Apologists?

Sentinal, an oral medication for pets designed to combat heartworm
and fleas warns that the spray-on pesticide solution (the competition)
leaves pesticide residue all over the home. Video shows a cute little dog,
like Frasier's Eddie hopping up and leaving various places around the home,
such as the end of a couch and an uncovered pillow on a human's bed. He
leaves behind a fluorescent green "spot" which represents invisible pesticide. --- '00-Jun-12th

Do
Me Drawers

Costavike
tells of: 99.99% of the rest of society who do not believe there is
a sinister plot behind contrails. Wow! I mean... that you can be so precise!
Is it just me or did you seem to ignore the fact that I had just finished
saying that most of those who are "aware" of chemtrails don’t seem to think
they’re part of some evil plot?

Costavike
asks: Did you say virtually the exact same thing about Y2k and
those who didn't "GI"? [i.e. that it is deniers who are acting upon faith]

You’ve just made the logical error of attempting
to claim that a statement is discredited merely for having been made by
someone who is thought to have once made an error. Besides being illogical,
this is a dishonorable tactic on your part. Your suggestion that I said
this would be highly believable by anyone who knows me, since it is the
type of thing that I might have said. You don’t come right out and say
"You said ___," which would call for you to document it, but instead "Did
you say ___?" which would probably force me to have to admit "I
might have." That, of course, would probably be interpreted as "She said
it but just won’t admit it." I’m going to turn the tables, though.

No. I didn’t say it. I didn’t even
come close. The only hint of this thought is when something like that is
implied in this joke
that I made up and posted on another forum. I can say with confidence that
I did not say what you’re asking about because I searched through
all of my Y2K related writings for the strings "determined," "despite,"
"evidence," "produce," "contrary," "GI," and "get it."

None of the hits turned up anything along
these lines. For the record, I actually made no generalizations
about people who didn’t "get it," or DGI’s, except that all of the DGI’s
I’d talked to believed that the media had covered the Y2K story ad nauseum.
If I were going to have made such a statement it would have been here: Y2K
Fear as a Religion? (backup copy).

For good measure, I also had my human being
read through everything from beginning to end with this question in mind
(i.e. I looked, without aid of my search function, for similar meaning,
not necessarily expressed in the same words). Still, no joy. If you should
care to prove me wrong, my complete Y2K related writings somewhat randomly
filed under one of six categories. These are:
Stakes,
Odds,
Spin,
Courage,
Preps,
or Next
World. Perhaps you can find something in there that’s wrong
that I actually said. Thus, your error could be cut back to only
the logical fallacy of claiming that if a idea is supported by anybody
who ever made an error, then it is discredited.

But, for now, I’ll throw you a bone. If I
had thought to make such a statement (i.e. that Y2K deniers are
operating upon faith), I would have made it. In fact, I still
believe that, like the pants of teens showing their do-me drawers, the
entire world economy is held up by little more than the faith of the participants.
With sufficient provocation it will tumble down to around our feet. And
when it does, somebody’s gonna get royally screwed (or at least have a
mess on their hands). Meanwhile, the economy stays up, to the amazement
of some onlookers, such as me.

As for taking my best shot at stumping the
trails con-guy, I’m sure he’s far too busy trashing Wm Thomas to bother
with the likes of ‘lil ol’ me. However, as was true for Y2K, my statements
about chemtrails are an
open book and he’s welcome to comment on them. If what he says is funny
enough, I’m sure I’ll hear about it. However, I’m not in the practice of
starting off-topic threads, here. I only participate on them when I think
I have something worthwhile to contribute. I doubt that I would consider
his opinion to be worthwhile. He’s hardly worth a link on my own page,
but I put it there anyway because it was the best alternative POV that
I have found so far. (Sad for the CT debunky team, I know.) --- '00-Jun-6th

"Believing in" Chemtrails

Costavike says: So very typical. As somebody once said- belief in
"chemtrails" requires starting with the assumption that something bad MUST
be going on, and then working backwards to find a conspiracy based cause.
I ask you, is there even *one* "chemtrailer" among you on this thread who
is not guilty of this error in critical thinking?

The Deyos' article, as quoted in the thread
originating post, offers what they perceive to be the top two most
popular explanations, both benign reasons: innoculations and weather mod.
These two explanations are so popular that most people are not even
aware of the "depopulation" explanation which they mention but refuse to
dwell upon, because it is too heavy.

The contributions to this thread are people
offering additional reasons that have been hypothesized (whether we believe
them or not). The benign reasons were fully laid out in the Deyo essay,
and are believed by most of those who acknowledge that there is something
unusual going on. We are willing to consider other possible benign explanations.
What are they? They're not so easy to cough up (so to speak) are they?
It is not necessary to be entirely convinced that "something bad MUST be
going on" to be merely willing to consider alternative explanations.

Being willing to acknowledge that there is
something unusual going on above us does not require a leap of faith before
one can "believe in" chemtrails. On the contrary, it is chemtrail deniers
who are acting on faith or pocketbook. If it is mere faith, they are determined
that there cannot be anything unusual going on in any of
the numerous places across the country and the world where chemtrails are
being reported,
despite any and all evidence that might be produced
to the contrary. --- '00-Jun-3rd

Rentokil,
Initial

Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow! Looks like hit men, or at least ones that
could easily find a way to really mess up your life. I notice they didn’t
want to carry whatever corporate image they’re trying to project into their
catering division. Smart choice. Obviously they’re aware of how this name
might be perceived. They probably get a big chuckle over that. (I’m reminded
of the trouble that Chevrolet had marketing their Nova in Latin America.)
Wouldn’t Mel Gibson’s character in Conspiracy Theory have a field
day with this?

Regarding surveillence, this thread needs
a link to ones about using "dust" as a communications network. --- '00-May-12th

Bumbling
Through

This comment posted on unknown thread

Fish
Speaker says: I just don't want the legitimate sightings and
reports to be drowned out by hysterical speculations and stories made up
by people who want their 15 minutes of fame.

Elegent side swipe. ::: Dancr tips hat :::

In case it weren't obvious, my lamenting about
missing my 15 minutes of fame was a joke. The point was that science is
a process, and a way of living. If enough people practice it, eventually
somebody stumbles onto the truth. I'm willing to describe my own stumblings
in the hopes that somebody else can avoid the same pitfalls, take the ball
and run with it. It was a way to encourage others to go for the glory.

I knew at the time of that writing that somebody
would come back and say that it just shows I don't have the foggiest idea
what I'm doing. I can handle that because I have a long history of experience
with bumbling
through.

Yes, I suppose I could leave all questions
of "fact" to the proper authorities, such as such as Bill "I did not have
sex with that woman" Clinton, but then, that just wouldn't be me.

"Hysterical speculations and made up stories..."
That's almost politically correct language for nutcase theories and lies.
Why do I think we're getting closer to the truth? --- unknown date

Take
Back the Science!

Chemtrail debunkers seem determined to disbelieve in even the
possibility that these trails could be anything other than normal condensation
trails that cannot hurt anyone, despite whatever evidence might be produced
to the contrary. Either they must be not presenting their true beliefs
or they have entered into the realm of faith.

Fish
Speaker speculates that the increased frequency of the wider trails
could be due to any of a variety of normal phenomena, such as increased
traffic, global warming, depletion of ozone, increased pollution, improvements
in jet engines... But, if these were the whole explanation, wouldn’t the
change in the character of the trails have been a gradual shift over the
past fifty or so years that we’ve had jets, and during which the industrialization
of the Northern Hemisphere has been most marked? Instead, what we’re witnessing
is a sudden appearance of the new-fangled trails.

Costavike
says: It's a shame your explanation will go unheeded by those
who *prefer* to believe there is something sinister going on.

This is an attempt to discredit reports of chemtrail sightings and
other related evidence by making it seem as though there is some reason
to distrust the objectivity of those who do the reporting. Of course, nobody
would "prefer" to believe that there is something sinister going on. But
refusing to believe that there is the slimmest possibility that anyone
would ever do something that ends up hurting us will not protect us against
such actions if those people do exist. There may be some few of
us who do believe that there is something sinister, but most of those interested
in this issue are merely willing to consider the possibility that there
is at least
something strange going on, whether sinister or not.

Costavike
says there’s not a shred of "chemtrail" evidence. This is frustrating
because there are so many convincing photographs available to be viewed
on the web. He links to a chemtrail debunker site showing pictures of probable
simple condensation trails, claiming they’re not unusual. Most chemtrail
observers would agree those are not the curious variety that we’re concerned
about. We have to wonder how Costavike
could devote so much time to these chemtrail threads, and still have never
seen one.

There are sightings by independent observers
all across the country. The connection between heavy spraying and overbooked
emergency rooms is quite consistent. It is reasonable to ask whether
these tens of millions of deathly ill people were just being silly and
only needed to have some sense slapped into them. But what about the fact
that most of them never
noticed (backup
copy) the suspicious trails that had been independently documented
as laid down just before everybody got sick?

Fish
Speaker says All I can say is that if anyone is spraying ,
it sure isn't affecting me. <wink> Well, some ten million other
people dialed 1-800-IgotFlu. Granted, this is field observation, and not
experimentation on the part of the concerned observers, but our process
of investigating this phenomenon is still science.

It is not necessary to have used esoteric
chemical analysis equipment, telescopes and microscopes for observations
to qualify as respectable data. We are able to make meaningful statements
about our experience while relying directly upon our abilities to describe
what we see, hear or don’t hear, what we smell and taste, how long things
take, and what we feel (including our symptoms of physical illness). The
experiences of our senses are only subjective, until we find that other
people all across the country are corroborating our experiences.

That said, we are also measuring things,
and using equipment to extend our powers of observation. Personally, I’ve
used a telescope, microscope, zoom and wide-angle camera lenses, and a
black light. My next project is to examine a micro-filament under both
a black-light and a microscope. I should be able to do this, because
I’ve got one of those non-electric microscopes that capture ambient light
and feed it through a curved tube of quartz. I’ve recently painted all
my walls and replaced all my floor coverings (for unrelated reasons), and
will be interested to see if the quantity of micro-filaments increases
over time.

I may also shell out for a digital video camera,
as soon as I find some spare cash. Hopefully, somebody else will beat me
to it. I have to put my paranoid hat on to say that I won’t do this without
giving considerable thought to how brave I will need to be. Reportedly
some people have gotten extra dosages for being outspoken or for questioning
too intently. Personally, I’d be proud to sacrifice myself for such a worthwhile
cause. However, I do also have to consider my son.

Collecting photographic
evidence is no easy trick. Even my wide-angle lens does not begin to capture
the vastness of an horizon to horizon I-Max view, but only a very narrow
wedge of sky (perhaps six in a row needed).
My
own few photographs do not begin to capture the vastness of the scale
of these spraying projects. I assume the new digital video cameras will
not approach the better analog cameras in quality of image, nor in the
size of the wedge of sky they can claim.

Also, it is necessary to observe for an hour
or more to get the full impact of what is happening. One cannot simply
point a camera to some static point in the sky and let it roll or take
periodic still shots for a time-series. The trails move across the sky
as they are pushed by the wind, and within a few minutes they will be out
of frame. We need to enlist an I-Max photographer.

It is difficult to capture the wide-angle
effect showing the overall final result of spraying, together with the
zoom photographic evidence showing the nature of the plane doing the deed.
Patching it together with the origin and destination of the planes is also
no easy trick from our handicapped positions on the ground. A few reports
of attempts to do this have told of how the planes scattered when researchers
ventured into their airspace. One chase pilot had some kind of unexplained
accident on a clear day. We may eventually manage to get some ground relay
teamwork network going. These things take time to set up, for people who
still have to put food on the table. Science is a slow, painstaking process
of discovery.

Apparently, there are a few samples
which have been analyzed by professional laboratories to identify their
chemical and biological qualities. I don’t have the details of this information
at my fingertips at this moment. However, they are readily available by
listening to either of the two Will Thomas interviews on Coast to Coast
which are mentioned on my
Chemtrails, à la Carte page.

There exist various government documents unambiguously
anticipating the potential need for this kind of project. This, in itself,
does not “prove” that such spraying is going on, but, together with the
observations of our own senses and equipment, it does corroborate what
we are experiencing. It may help in convincing some that refuse to even
consider that the government could be involved. It might also help in deflecting
the attempts of detractors, such as Costavike,
to paint concerned citizens as emotionally defective. Why would the government
bother to legitimize the spraying? So government employees would cooperate
and citizens would have
a harder time bringing these projects to a halt and holding anyone accountable.

Those who claim that chemtrail researchers
are unscientific or irrational do not have a very good grip upon the meaning
of these terms. Science does not consist of what schools teach in a typical
"science" class. Generally, what such classes teach are various examples
of scientific discoveries organized into fields of inquiry or organized
chronologically as a history of science. Students may go
through the motions of replicating some scientific discoveries that other
people have already made.

What schools don’t generally teach is a habit
of questioning why things are they way they are. They don’t encourage kids
to cook up as many possible reasons as they can, but only to cough up the
generally accepted "correct" reasons. This is the opposite of science!!!

Science is living in the world of the unknown.
It’s buying a black light and taking it into the shower stall... noticing
the previously invisible filaments and how alive they act. It’s observing
how they sometimes seem to be avoiding my finger as though they were magnetically
repelled, and other times seem to jump over and almost purposefully attach
themselves to my skin. It’s being alarmed about how I have to tug to break
them loose again... wondering what the $%&# they are!

Science is not discouraging speculation
and lecturing people ad nauseum about the known properties of harmless
water vapor. --- '00-May-5th

Noise
Makers

That said... there are entirely too many chemtrails
threads that add nothing to our knowledge of them. As I mentioned when
this question came up a month or more ago, the threads tend to be started
by unknown handles, who apparently have not taken note of the vast amount
of information that is out there already. Many posts are of the "they're
spraying me now" variety, describing the same information about the expanding
trails that do not dissipate. Is there some way to help these starter threads
to be nipped and replanted into an appropriate already existing thread?

Also, I've recently noticed
an annoying trend, by two posters in particular, to post their borderline
longish essays onto several of the threads. That's spamming. Ceemeister,
in particular, today, posted the same 400 plus word essay to ten different
chemtrail threads. That's really uncool. --- '00-Jan-24th

What sociopolitical conditions have caused those theories to be
embraced with such fervor, and what makes such elaborate belief structures
seem quite reasonable?

Perhaps too many people are becoming aware of this country’s long history
of treating its citizens as lab animals in incidents such as the Tuskeegee
"Experiment." Maybe we don’t necessarily believe that somebody on the inside
will speak up when they witness an injustice, after we view tapes of the
Rodney King beatings that came to light well after the incident. Could
it be that some of us are learning to rely on our own senses, rather than
allowing "authorities" to define what we perceive? OK. To Mr. Jones’ credit,
he went on to answer this question using just such examples as these.

Her descriptions transform the clouds into living enemies as they
stretch out over the sky, reach out and grab one another, stack top of
each other, crawl in over the horizon, descend upon us, making us ill.

It would be interesting to hear what she actually said.

"I think it would be highly unlikely that someone would disperse
a chemical at 10,000 feet with the intention of it reaching the ground,"
Allen said.

Yet such evidence does little to crack an intensely held set of
beliefs.

Well... It’s gotta come down some time!

...Thomas admits he has not established a direct link between chemical
contrails and outbreaks of disease, only an anecdotal one. Which begs the
question: Are people seeing and feeling what their belief systems would
have them see and feel?

How do we explain the Salinas local TV news report of the hospitals
being full with a mysterious illness and that the San Jose hospitals were
experiencing similar overcrowding? They did not tie the incidents to spraying,
but chemtrail watchers complained at certain internet sites that there
had been some recent heavy spray days. In my own case, my son got extremely
ill on those same days, and we never even heard of chemtrails until weeks
later.

...those who believe come mostly from dissatisfied groups looking
for power and for answers to life's complicated problems.

... like Y2K?

"Conspiracy theory is a skeptical, paranoid, obsessive practice
of scanning for signs and sifting through bits of evidence for the missing
link," Stewart writes.

I, for one, am not making any money by offering my opinions on this
or any other topic. I’m not saying that to do so is wrong, only that those
who insinuate that I have some ulterior motive for expressing myself about
this are wrong about that.

Steven T. Jones actually died in 1998 during a freak plane crash
in clear weather east of Creston. We said at the time that he had taken
a job in Monterey. A few months later we started to get articles, allegedly
by him.

I don’t know quite what to make of this. Did the New Times investigate
the circumstances surrounding the death of their reporter? Why did they
say that he had taken a job in Monterey? When did they find out that he
had died? Was it perhaps a different Steven T. Jones who died or who is
writing these articles? Is anybody being paid for this article? Is this
just an amusing way to end a conspiracy article?

It turns out the "About" page for this newspaper
lists Steven T. Jones as one of two staff writers. I wrote to him at sjones@newtimesslo.com
to invite him to visit this
page to view any commentary that may appear [t]here about his article. --- '99-Dec-7th